2009 (10) TMI 546 - HC - Customs

Baggage Misdeclaration - foreign citizen coming from abroad - goods were brought to India to be given as gift to his friends and for personal use - goods were found in commercial quantity, the Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods invoking Section 111(d) (l),(m) of the Customs Act 1962 - of Customs (Appeals) modified the said order and allowed to re-export the goods on payment of fine - petitioner s children were studying in Chennai and the goods were brought for children and to give as gifts to the family members who are taking care of the children Held that - Revisional Authority has modified the order of re export to one of release of goods for home consumption on payment of redemption fine and penalty as ordered by the original authority - no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Authority. There is no illegality or flaw in the order under challenge.

Issues:
1. Quashing of orders passed by the first respondent in Revision petition.
2. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act due to mis-declaration.
3. Appeal to re-export goods and modification by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
4. Revision filed before the first respondent regarding redemption fine and penalty.
5. Modification of order by the first respondent allowing redemption of goods for home consumption.
6. Challenge in the writ petition regarding redemption fine and penalty.
7. Department's counter refuting allegations and justifying the impugned order.
8. Mis-declaration of goods' value and commercial quantity found by the authorities.
9. Discretion of adjudicating authority in imposing redemption fine and penalty.
10. Power of Revisional authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed to challenge the orders passed in a Revision petition modifying the original order regarding the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act due to mis-declaration. The petitioner, a foreign citizen, had declared the value of electronic goods as Rs. 50,000, but Customs found it to be Rs. 2,12,700, leading to initiation of proceedings under the Customs Act. The Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and penalty, which was later modified by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

2. The petitioner then filed a Revision before the first respondent, seeking a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty. The Revisional authority modified the order, allowing redemption for home consumption but imposing a lower redemption fine. The petitioner challenged this order in the writ petition, arguing that the redemption fine and penalty were excessive, and the goods should be allowed to be re-exported without any fines.

3. The Department refuted the petitioner's claims, stating that there was mis-declaration to evade customs duty, justifying the impugned order. The authorities found mis-declaration in the value of goods and that they were in commercial quantity, leading to initiation of action for confiscation. The Department argued that the quantum of fine and penalty was justified based on the circumstances of the case.

4. The Court held that the authorities were justified in initiating action for confiscation due to mis-declaration and commercial quantity of goods. While the petitioner contested the quantum of fine and penalty, the Court noted that imposing such fines fell within the discretion of the adjudicating authority. The Revisional authority's modification of the redemption fine was deemed lawful under Section 129DD of the Customs Act.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit to interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Authority. The decision highlighted the discretionary powers of adjudicating and Revisional authorities in imposing fines and penalties under the Customs Act, emphasizing that the Revisional authority's actions were within the scope of the law.

← Previous Next →